JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jul 2012

Climate Change: Discussion with IIEA

Chairman

I welcome, from the Institute of International and European Affairs, Ms Gina Hanrahan, climate change and environment researcher, and Mr. Joseph Curtin, research associate and former senior researcher on climate change. From Trócaire, I welcome Mr. Éamonn Meehan, deputy director, Mr. Tom Crowley, programme leader for sustainable livelihoods and environmental justice, and Ms Cliona Sharkey, environmental policy officer. I thank you for your attendance before the committee.

I propose that we hear the presentation from the Institute of International and European Affairs, followed by the presentation from Trócaire. We will then have a question and answer session between members of the committee and witnesses. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, you are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give to this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to do so, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statements you have submitted to the committee will be published on the committee’s website after the meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We are here to discuss climate change. On a local level, we could do with some climate change for the next three or four weeks to give us something that looks like a summer. On a more serious note, this issue affects the entire planet. Earlier this year, I attended two briefing meetings for environment committee chairmen in Copenhagen. If we were not discussing an economic crisis in Ireland we would be discussing the serious energy, transport and water crisis that is coming down the tracks.

In that regard, I welcome the witnesses to the committee and thank them for their time. We face the difficulty of getting ourselves out of an economic crisis without creating a level of consumption that is not sustainable. We also face the difficulty of how Third World and developing regions can deal with climate change challenges and how we can deal with them concurrently in a balanced and co-ordinated way. One of the biggest challenges considered in Rio de Janeiro this year was how the developing world should respond to the demand from the developed world that it monitor its progress, in view of the fact that the developed countries have already crossed that Rubicon.

I call Ms Gina Hanrahan to address the committee.

Ms Gina Hanrahan

On behalf of the Institute of International and European Affairs, I thank the Chairman and the committee for their kind invitation to address them today. Given Trócaire's emphasis in its presentation on the international situation, on impacts and on adaption, we will concentrate on domestic climate change mitigation and, more specifically, on climate legislation. There are several key milestones approaching in terms of the roadmap. We are currently awaiting the publication of both the interim NESC report, which focuses on how Ireland can meet its 2020 targets, and the results of the public consultation conducted by the Department in the spring.

We therefore welcome the timely opportunity for an exchange of views with the committee, especially considering the influential role it will have in the pre-legislative scrutiny process and the legislative process itself over the coming year. The committee's final report to Government will be crucial in determining whether Ireland will get the kind of climate law it needs.

I will outline the rationale for climate law before discussing our view of the key components of an effective climate law. Why should we legislate? We believe there is a lack of consensus about the purpose of a line of climate law which in the past has resulted in inertia or in political polarisation in the case of theClimate Change Response Bill 2010. Should a law introduce binding emissions reduction targets for Ireland that go beyond EU targets? Should it decide between differing types of measures to reduce emissions? Should it decide which sectors - agriculture, industry, transport or residential – should contribute most in terms of emissions reduction?

We believe that the main purpose of a law is not to do any of these things, but rather to create an effective policy framework within which such decisions can be made. Why do we need such a framework? Simply put, Ireland has a historical implementation challenge and a significant challenge to meet its 2020 targets, which must be overcome if we are to reach the target.

It is welcome that Ireland is now on track to meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments under the first commitment period, which expires this year. As I said Ireland has a considerable challenge if it is to meet its legally binding EU target by 2020. Unless additional policy measures are agreed and implemented in a timely way, Ireland is on course to overshoot its emissions by 2015 or by 2017 even in the best-case scenario according to the EPA data. We will therefore have to identify and implement new policy measures that enable compliance with the EU target, if we are not to rely on the purchase of credits to meet our targets. Beyond 2020, the level of global ambition and the green economy imperatives to 2050 increase the scale of the challenge before us. It will also present opportunities.

The key hurdle in compliance terms for Ireland is its unique emissions profile. Ireland has a comparatively low level of trading scheme emissions where opportunities for reductions are higher and cheaper, a dispersed settlement pattern which leads to high car dependency, and a high proportion of agricultural emissions. The two sectors considered most challenging from an emissions point of view are transport and agriculture which account for more than 70% of domestic sector emissions . Agricultural emissions are set to rise following the removal of milk quotas in 2015 and in the context of Food Harvest 2020 strategy.

The considerable challenge to 2020 is coupled with an implementation deficit in Irish climate policy, a trend by no means unique to Ireland. Although comprehensive packages of measures to address Ireland's climate challenge were outlined in the first and second national climate change strategies in 2000 and 2007, many of the announced measures were not implemented or were implemented only after considerable delay. Had these measures been put in place in a timely manner we could have met our obligations from domestic measures under the Kyoto Protocol.

As a result of the implementation gap, together with rapid economic growth to 2008, it is only the onset of severe economic contraction that has ensured that we will be able to meet our Kyoto Protocol obligations and even then only with the use of offset credits already purchased. The public interest can suffer as a result of delays to policy implementation. Many of the measures contained in both strategies could have improved the quality of life of Ireland's citizens, decreased energy bills and reduced Ireland's need to purchase carbon credits.

The difficulties of implementation can partly be attributed to an inadequate framework for policy delivery where, crucially, progress was not systematically reviewed. Given the scale of the future decarbonisation challenge, we believe that a legal framework for policy implementation can assist us in achieving the level of ambition that will be required. A well designed climate law that puts in place an effective policy cycle can help to bridge the implementation gap and to identify and implement the policy interventions required to meet Ireland's EU commitment. Climate law can do this in an impartial way but in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of different sectors.

What are the key elements of an effective climate law?We argue that a climate law need not focus on setting new or additional targets beyond those agreed at EU level, but rather on the creation of a framework for meeting the legally binding targets to which we have already subscribed. The establishment of a long-term target to 2050 may be beneficial in giving clarity about the overall policy direction. Additionally, because the EU emissions trading scheme sector is already regulated at EU level, we think a climate law could focus on regulating the domestic sector of the economy.

The second lesson is that the principle of carbon budgeting can help to drive compliance. Carbon budgets essentially split long-term targets into manageable five-year envelopes. This makes targets more immediate. At present targets can seem distant to policy makers and the public alike. By using five year targets that mirror electoral cycles, this helps to ensure greater political accountability for compliance, making long fingering of policies less likely.

We argue that the establishment of an independent expert advisory body is a crucial component of climate law. This body could be contained within an existing organisation, once its independence is guaranteed and it can draw on relevant expertise as necessary. The role for the body is to have responsibility for drafting initial five-year carbon budgets and the strategies to meet those budgets. Each strategy could suggest what measures could feasibly be introduced and recommend the appropriate balance between different sectors, based on the principle of cost-effectiveness and taking into account competitiveness impacts on different sectors of the economy. The strategy could also help to establish the most appropriate ceiling for the purchase of emissions offset at the beginning.

The importance of the independent expert body cannot be overstated, especially in the context of competing agendas in society. As a politically neutral and expert rather than a stakeholder body, it would have the power to frame the debate in terms of Ireland's overall economic, environmental and social interests, facilitating constructive negotiations between sectors. Once the strategy was published, there could be a transparent political debate involving all stakeholders. If any stakeholders have a case for deviating from the experts' recommendations, that case would have to be made in the full public scrutiny of this committee and of civil society. The final decision on the strategy should, as in other policy areas, remain political, as long as the rationale for the political decision is made public.

The other key role to be played by the expert group is to serve as a watchdog, ensuring we are making sufficient progress on our emissions pathway. The expert body could conduct annual reviews and monitoring, with a red flag mechanism designed to identify and remedy distances to target. It is critical from a transparency and accountability perspective that all advice of the independent advisory body would be published as a matter of course. This committee could also have an important role once a climate law is in force in scrutinising initial strategies and annual reviews released by the advisory body and in enabling civil society input. It is very important to stress that this committee will be central once the law is in place. This would also bolster transparency and accountability and provide strong democratic underpinnings for climate action.

There were concerns in the context of the Climate Change Response Bill 2010 that the introduction of a climate law could give rise to extensive litigation if targets are not met, and the Climate Change Response Bill explicitly made the targets in the Bill non-justiciable in order to avoid this risk. The requirement for such a provision is not immediately clear if the law gives flexibility to Government to alter targets or plans or to reject the advice of the committee in view of, for instance, changed economic circumstances. What is really important is that the clear justification for so doing is made public.

If robust transparency and accountability mechanisms, together with duties of parliamentary monitoring, are introduced in law they can act as strong compliance levers in themselves. Ultimately a climate law is designed to enshrine an effective management framework for abatement and adaptation rather than to put legal pressure on Government through the legal process.

To sum up, a climate law could be a means of establishing an effective framework for meeting our short-term 2020 commitments and overcoming the historical implementation deficit in Irish climate policy. We do not believe in a climate law for its own sake. An inadequate climate law could risk increasing the regulatory burden for little gain at a time when the country can least afford it. A well-designed climate law should not only sharpen the focus on meeting targets, it should also give rise to an effective policy cycle that prompts long-term thinking, helps to frame consideration of different policy options in terms of cost-effectiveness and the overall national interest, and enhances accountability and transparency. Although Ireland is now Kyoto compliant, we cannot rely on ongoing economic contraction as the cornerstone of our approach to climate mitigation. The EPA reminded us in its latest state of the environment report that we have a chance to learn from the mistakes of the Celtic tiger years and to avail of the opportunities presented by the emerging global green economy. Long-term thinking is already happening as part of the roadmap process. I think that reflects an awareness of the need to make the right policy decisions now for the transition towards decarbonisation.

Next year will be a significant one for Irish climate policy. It will mark the start of our second Kyoto commitment period and our annual binding targets under EU law. It will also mark Ireland's next EU Presidency, which will give us an important opportunity to demonstrate leadership in this sector. Most importantly, we hope 2013 will mark the adoption by the Government of an overall climate policy, featuring a clear strategy and trajectory, and the introduction of a climate law. This committee is central to ensuring the process that takes place towards these ends is transparent, inclusive and constructive and has the support of a wide range of stakeholders. We wish the committee well in its important deliberations over the coming months. We will be more than happy to assist the committee in any way we can during the roadmap process and beyond.

Chairman

I thank Ms Hanrahan. I invite Mr. Éamonn Meehan of Trócaire to address the committee.

Mr. Éamonn Meehan

Trócaire welcomes the opportunity to make a presentation to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht. We are all vulnerable to climate change. In rich and poor countries alike, those who are more socially or economically marginalised are affected most by climate change and have the least means to cope. The geographical position, dependence on rain-fed agriculture and underdeveloped physical and socioeconomic infrastructure of many developing countries leave them particularly vulnerable to increasingly frequent and intense weather events and slow onset changes such as increases in temperature. Trócaire's decision six years ago to prioritise climate change in our overseas programming, as well as in our campaigning and development education work in Ireland, was based on a recognition that our long-term development efforts were giving way to cyclical humanitarian response and that climate change is defining the parameters of what is possible in terms of global development and poverty eradication. As we were coming up against a massive stumbling block, we had to reorient our efforts and rethink our strategies.

Trócaire recently published the findings of a two-year study in which we followed households in communities in Malawi, Kenya, Honduras and Bolivia to investigate how they are experiencing the impacts of climate change and what they are doing to respond. The communities reported increasingly unpredictable rains, increased drought and serious declines in food production and, as a result, family incomes. In all countries, we found families making hard choices. Many families in Kenya have reduced their numbers of livestock or switched to smaller and more resilient animals. Other families are migrating. We found that people are not sitting back. They are doing their best to cope with the challenges they are facing. There are limits to their capacity to do so, due to insufficient support and because all strategies have their limits in severe conditions. People in Kenya, for example, have reported that drought resistant crops are failing. We would like to emphasise the critical point that climate change is having a corrosive impact on the most vulnerable people, who have the least responsibility for causing the problem.

The recent climate change conference in Durban was hailed as having achieved significant political progress, but the reality is that globally we are off track with our efforts to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The international community continually reaffirms its commitment to the goal of keeping further warming within a 2° limit. However, current emission reduction pledges put average temperatures on track for a further rise of between 3° and 4°. The prospect of this level of warming should be well understood. There is evidence of reduced growing seasons and impacts on crop production in Africa. Agricultural production in many African countries and regions is projected to be severely compromised with future warming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the areas suitable for agriculture, the length of growing seasons and the yield potential are expected to decrease, particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid areas in Africa. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by as early as 2020.

If there is an increase in temperature of 3°, between 250 million and 550 million people will be at risk of hunger, over half of them in Africa and western Asia. Beyond the threshold of 2°, the risk of large-scale human development setbacks and irreversible ecological catastrophe increases sharply. If there is 3° of warming, between 20% and 30% of land species could face extinction. An increase of more than 3° in global mean temperatures would mean that the adaptive capacity of many systems and societies would be exceeded. This is a future we cannot envisage. We would not be able to adapt to it. To put it simply, it has to be avoided. Ambition and action on reducing emissions must stepped up at all levels over the coming years if avoiding overshooting the 2° limit to further warming is to remain feasible. We are at that point in our efforts. The 2011 national climate policy review noted the "real possibility that the EU will increase the overall level of ambition, with more demanding targets being set for individual member states as a result". Having championed the 2° goal, it is likely and highly necessary that the EU will increase its emission reduction commitments if it is to maintain credibility and if we are to begin to close the gap between current commitments and what science demands.

Africa is recognised as one of the regions most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In the last decade, greenhouse gas emissions in Malawi were 0.7 tonnes per person per year, while emissions in Ireland were 17.5 tonnes per person per year, which was among the highest per person levels in the world. Malawi is a priority country in Ireland's development co-operation programme, one of the core objectives of which is to support people to adapt to climate change. This support and solidarity is important. The efforts being made in Ireland's development co-operation programme to help people to cope with the impacts of climate change must be met with commensurate action to address Ireland's disproportionately high emissions, which are contributing to the causes of climate change.

Trócaire believes that in light of this country's failure to reduce its emissions effectively, despite being legally obliged to do so for more than a decade, domestic legislation is a necessary and desirable tool to ensure effective policy planning and implementation. Trócaire and others welcomed the roadmap that was issued by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in January of this year because it provided important clarity and detail on the steps to be followed over the next 18 to 24 months as climate policy and legislation are developed and adopted. It is critical that all elements of this roadmap, including the commitment to publish the heads of a climate Bill in the fourth quarter of 2012, are adhered to. That would mean that when we assume the Presidency of the EU in January 2013, we will be able to send a clear signal that we are ready to take our climate change commitments seriously.

More than 3,600 primary, secondary and special schools in Ireland, or 88% of all Irish schools, are participating part in the green schools scheme, which is an international environmental education programme. In 2008, more than 7,500 people supported Trócaire's Lenten campaign petition on climate change. Over the past year, more than 3,500 e-mails have been sent by Trócaire supporters to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to call for action on climate change. Trócaire is just one of many organisations and groups that are calling for action on this issue. The factors shaping public views, interests and values are complex. While it will never be possible to have support for specific actions from all individuals or groups in society, the public interest and protection of the most vulnerable both globally and domestically must be a primary principle in guiding our action. As has been noted, the joint committee has an important role to play in performing this task and Trócaire supports it in this important work.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I thank the delegation for its important presentation. I have the impression that the prevailing view is that we need to sort out the economic mess before we address climate change. There appears to be a desire to return to the position that obtained in the past. This would inevitably create further problems and it would not resolve our current problems.

I am interested in the concept of a carbon budget. One of my concerns about how we conduct our affairs is that carbon taxes are collected as an excise duty and are not ring-fenced for specific purposes. People cannot see how the money is spent or used to change behaviour, for example, by financing the retrofitting of homes or wind and wave energy projects. I presume the delegation is proposing a multi-annual carbon budget. Does it propose that this budget be ring-fenced and spent in ways that effect changes in policy and behaviour? Carbon taxes have acquired a bad reputation because they are viewed as revenues that are placed in the general pot to be used to plug holes in revenue.

I thank the delegation for the document provided. The joint committee's role of ensuring the roadmap is kept on track was mentioned. Members are concerned that the publication of the heads of the climate change Bill will be delayed. Information we received earlier indicates the legislation is still on track. A second objective of the joint committee is to ensure the Bill meets certain criteria.

As I do not disagree with much of the presentation, I will not use our time teasing out points of agreement. I ask the delegation to address the issue of the carbon budget.

Mr. Joseph Curtin

On the carbon budget, a slight issue arises regarding the labels we have used. When we refer to a carbon budget we mean an overall amount of carbon emissions. Let us say we have a target of reducing emissions by 20% by 2020. This means the target must be achieved in the next eight years. We suggest that this long-term target should be divided into shorter periods. If we were to decide to reduce carbon emissions by 10% by 2016, the carbon budget is effectively the amount of emissions Ireland can release into the atmosphere in the period between 2012 and 2016. The budget, therefore, refers to emissions rather than finances. I fully understand the lack of clarity in this regard. The terminology was taken from the British climate law but we need not use the same terminology as that used in the British climate law.

Another way of addressing this issue would be to ask what is our climate strategy. The first climate strategy was published in 2000 and set out a vision for the following seven years, while the second climate strategy published in 2007 set out a vision for the subsequent seven years. When we speak of a carbon budget we are essentially referring to a vision for how we will achieve our climate objectives. We are also saying that the current target setting at European Union level is too long term. Some of the measures one would take to achieve climate objectives can be somewhat unpopular. They may be good for society overall but they can negatively impact on some highly organised interest groups. For this reason, it is easier to put decisions on the long finger. However, if one makes the compliance periods shorter, governments will be more likely to be responsible for delivering specific policies in their lifetime. I could cite many examples of areas in which there has been a tendency to procrastinate or delay decisions. One example, which serves to illustrate the point, is the commitment made in 2005 to increase energy efficiency in buildings by 40%. In fairness to the Government of the day, it introduced a promised increase in the minimum efficiency standard in 2002. The 2005 commitment was shelved, however, primarily arising from objections from the Construction Industry Federation. If this commitment had been implemented at the time, it would have applied to the 250,000 homes built in the period before it was actually implemented. This means 250,000 householders are paying between €500 and €800 more than they should pay for their annual energy bills because the Construction Industry Federation did not want to build proper buildings.

More robust monitoring of implementation is required. Part of this process involves making shorter commitment periods, deciding what will be implemented in this period and having an annual review process to evaluate whether progress has been sufficient. Where it is found to be insufficient, additional policies must be introduced.

The issue of ring fencing is an ongoing argument. The Department of Finance will always argue that revenue should never be ring-fenced because it wants to have the flexibility to use money as it sees fit if circumstances change. I am not speaking necessarily as a former researcher in the Institute of International and European Affairs. However, my view is that some form of hypothecation - the fancy term for ring fencing - can be helpful for the very reasons Deputy Catherine Murphy outlined. For example, ring fencing allows people to see a direct relationship between having to pay more for their fuel and having an option to retrofit their home. Hypothecation is a good idea because people can understand it and for this reason, it can be very effective.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I apologise for missing part of the meeting. Unfortunately, I had to attend another engagement but I will read carefully the presentations made by Ms Hanrahan and Mr. Meehan. I am concerned that climate change legislation has slipped down the political agenda. As Mr. Curtin noted, some lobbies are campaigning against any form of what they would consider to be strict climate change requirements. It is increasingly obvious that we cannot afford to forgo introducing climate change legislation. When I travel to Dublin I see the fields of wheat and barley on the plains of Kildare, which are becoming more like paddy fields, with some of them under six inches of water. We clearly have a problem.

While it is true that climate change affects the poorest most, nobody will be immune. I am concerned about its effects on agriculture across the globe and the mounting evidence of climate change impacts on our own doorstep. I asked the Taoiseach about the Bill last week in the Dáil as Sinn Féin had hoped the heads of the Bill would be published earlier this year. We were told a roadmap was needed and were told that would happen in the fourth quarter. However, the Taoiseach's response to my question was that the heads of the Bill had not been approved and that he expected it would be 2013 before it is published. Unfortunately, I have not heard anything to the contrary since. We would like to see the roadmap. I was hoping to ask about it again today, but I need to be here to discuss these issues. We need to keep the issue on track and to leave party political differences aside. This is important for everybody.

Mr. Meehan mentioned the green school initiative and how beneficial and successful it is. There is a children's revolution in that regard and they are leading the way. We must try to do the same thing with the issue of climate change as we have done with the litter and environmental patrols. We must concentrate on the more visual aspects of environmental policy and involve the schools. The fact we are producing 17 tonnes of emissions per person - one of the highest in the world - points out to us that we must do something now. What are Mr. Meehan's views on that? We must push this at the political level to make it happen in the Dáil. However, I am interested to know how we, in conjunction with the witnesses can help to create grass root pressure, perhaps through the schools and communities, to make this happen and to have the issue ratcheted up so that it becomes a priority. Hopefully, we will not be put to shame on this during the EU Presidency. We have procrastinated on the issue for years and it seems we will now have the EU Presidency without having put any climate change legislation in place.

Mr. Éamonn Meehan

There is something of a children's revolution, as the Deputy put it and younger generations are more in tune with issues of climate change, the needs of society and global needs than older generations. In response to both questions, we do not have the luxury of sorting out the economy and then returning to the issue of climate change. We have legally binding obligations and will be called to account on those obligations. We are in a very dangerous position in terms of the scale of our carbon emissions per person as a nation and this puts us in a vulnerable position against many of our neighbours and other members of the European Union. We pride ourselves on our international responsibility as a nation and our commitments to humanitarianism and to the United Nations. However, this area is one where we have been a little behind the curve in terms of what we could be doing.

Now, with the roadmap and the fact we will take up the Presidency of the European Union in January 2013, there is an opportunity for us to move back into the mainstream, to meet our commitments and become more responsible. We have the opportunity to do something which will drive economic growth and development. Rather than seeing climate change and the requirements for low carbon economic development as a threat, we should see it as an opportunity which can be grasped. I heard this morning about a €10 billion investment in wind farm technology, which will sell electricity to the United Kingdom. That is just one example of the opportunities and there are many such examples. We also need a communications strategy. Deputy Murphy said that people do not see where their taxes are spent. We need a fairly intensive communications strategy to inform the public about climate change and the dangers of it. I know it can be difficult to communicate this when we have summers like ours. However, there are opportunities and we can inform the public better about the impact of climate change and about the opportunities that exist for entrepreneurs, investment and job creation here, not to mention our wider responsibilities for our brothers and sisters in the poorest parts of the world.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

I thank the witnesses for attending. I have just a few questions. Both Mr. Curtin and Mr. Meehan referred to an independent expert body and perhaps they will expand further on their thinking in that regard. Last December, the Minister attended this committee and said he hoped to have the heads of the Bill prepared by the end of 2012 and said that prior to that there would be consultation with the stakeholders. Have the witnesses had any input into that consultation with the Department? The Minister emphasised the need to hear everybody's views.

The witnesses mentioned the minimum efficiency standards for buildings. What optimum standard do they envisage being set? We are all familiar with the issue of emissions from transport and agriculture, but there are also emissions from land. What is the thinking on that area, such as on the type of methane escaping from boglands or marshy ground?

Mr. Joseph Curtin

With regard to the timeline for the Bill, I am not aware of whether there has been slippage on that. I would agree we need legislation, but I must stress that any climate law has the potential to be one of the most important pieces of legislation the Government will bring forward. It seems strange to say that in the context of the current economic crisis. We established NAMA and it will be with us for the next couple of decades, but a climate law will remain with us and will form a framework for how we respond to the challenge over the next 40 years. It has the potential to be an incredibly profound and important piece of legislation. We are here to emphasise the danger that we become polarised - climate law good, no climate law bad. We feel the issue is a lot more sophisticated and important and that was the purpose of our research paper.

The research paper looked at the different climate laws that have been mooted in the past and tried to assess the extent to which these laws targeted the problems that existed. We think the main problem is an implementation deficit. We give past governments great credit when it comes to formulating very sophisticated and detailed climate strategies. However, these strategies were not implemented. This is not just an Irish challenge, but is an international challenge. We have worked with many governments and are aware this happens in all countries and is due to the nature of climate policy in some ways. We want to emphasise that it is not just a case of climate law is good, no climate law is bad. We need to be very careful about how we bring the Bill forward and we need to learn from the mistakes of previous governments where there was a natural tendency to try to get things implemented as quickly as possible. We need to be very careful about this.

To get back to some of the pitfalls to be avoided, the primary thing to avoid is "targetology". We already have an annual reduction target, an emissions trading scheme, ETS, target, a non-ETS target and a potential long-term target. We have a renewable energy target, a target for renewables in transport and a target for renewables in heating. The extent to which all of these targets match up with each other is debatable. If we start to overlay these with our domestic targets, we must be extremely careful. The main failing of the previous Bill is that it attempts to bring forward an additional annual reduction target, in addition to the annual reduction target that would be there for the non-traded sector of the economy. This creates too much confusion. If one wants to be pragmatic about this, one must accept, as Mr. Meehan said, that there is already a debate within the EU about the 30% target and the Bill must be responsive to what happens at international level. If we impose more onerous targets here that will create room for other member states to pollute more. The reasons for this are fairly complex and are related to the overall EU policy framework but it is very hard for Ireland to go beyond what it is required to do at EU level. A blind focus on targets is a big pitfall to be avoided.

A question was asked about the independent expert body, which is a vital component. There are two-----

Chairman

I apologise for interrupting but must ask Mr. Curtin to make his responses more concise. Furthermore, a vote has been called in the House so we must suspend the meeting.

Mr. Joseph Curtin

That is fine.

Chairman

I hope to enable as many witnesses as possible to participate in the discussion on the resumption of our meeting.

Sitting suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Chairman

We will resume in public session. I interrupted Mr. Curtin as he was making his concluding remarks. I ask him to continue. I will then call Deputy Kevin Humphreys followed by Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan.

Mr. Joseph Curtin

The specific question I was asked was about building standards. We are on an ambitious trajectory in our residential sector as far as building standards are concerned but the problem is the enormous skills deficit in the trades and in the architectural profession to meet those targets. That is a major issue that must be addressed. In the non-residential sector, however, we have not improved our building standards in the past ten to 12 years and therefore that is the priority. The Government is aware of that, and there is a proposal to bring forward new building standards by 2013. I believe there is a resourcing issue in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government but we must bring forward urgently new building standards for our non-residential buildings.

Chairman

That mirrors what happened in Sweden where they set a percentage target every year, particularly in the public sector. They have set a benchmark for new public sector buildings or the renovation of existing public sector buildings in that targets would be met with regard to them.

Mr. Joseph Curtin

The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, is driving forward those programmes.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I am sorry I missed part of Mr. Curtin's presentation earlier; it has been a long day here. The witnesses are welcome.

A question was asked earlier about the independent expert group, and I am aware of the cornerstone UK legislation. Who would the witnesses see as making up the independent expert group? We have a fiscal committee and I presume it is along those lines the delegation is thinking. Perhaps the witnesses would give me an example of members or groups that should form part of the international group. I apologise for asking the question if the witnesses have already touched on this but I take it they would support national rather than sectoral targets.

Ms Gina Hanrahan

To return to the issue of the independent expert advisory body, because we did not get to answer Deputy Corcoran Kennedy's question on it, I wish to stress what we think are the key components. It should be built on a broad range of expertise, including overall economic competitiveness. That means it should consist of economists, scientists and people familiar with different types of technology - a broad spectrum - but still containing it to between five and seven members to avoid it becoming excessively complex.

It is important to stress that it should definitely not be a stakeholder body by any means. It has to be independent of Government and stakeholders in order that it can help to neutralise the discussion on targets and policy measures and frame the overall debate in terms of the public interest. It does not have to be a new body. It could be in the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, or, potentially, the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, given the expertise it has developed over the past while. That would help very much to contain costs. The central component is that it must be independent and be able to publish its advice. One of the weaknesses of the Climate Change Response Bill last year was that the committee's advice was not published as a matter of course. It has to be published as a matter of course, and that is critical.

To return to the question on bogland emissions, they are not part of the current accounting framework and that will be dealt with at an international level.

Ms Cliona Sharkey

To come back to Deputy Corcoran Kennedy's question on public consultation, part of the roadmap included public consultation until the end of April, and Trócaire and others welcomed that. We were disappointed that more effort was not made to reach out to stakeholders and the public more broadly, but it was still important that consultation took place. I understand more than 600 submissions were made to that consultation, which is up on the previous consultation held under the previous Government. We are awaiting the publication of the overview analysis of the submissions made, which was a key step in the roadmap laid out last January. As I understand it, that analysis should be published now and we are waiting for that to happen.

In respect of the expert body, as Ms Hanrahan said, we would agree with that in that it would be very important that it would be an expert body, rather than a stakeholder body. It would have a key role to play, not only in terms of proposing strategy but also in terms of the monitoring of the implementation of targets and policies to ensure the role of this committee, the Dáil and the public in holding the Government to account for implementation.

Ms Gina Hanrahan

As an example, the UK Climate Act specifies that there must be a broad range of expertise, and that includes business competitiveness, economics, climate science and policy, energy, technology and a few others. There is a broad spectrum.

Mr. Joseph Curtin

I wish to make a brief addendum. It is worth noting that in the 2007 national climate strategy there was a commitment to establish a climate change commission. This is not something we have plucked out of thin air. It is something that has been very much part of policy. At that stage it was suggested that the commission would be attached to the National Economic and Social Development Office and would report annually to Government through an appropriate Cabinet committee. This is something that has been mooted for quite a while. One could argue that it is another example of an overemphasis on excellent strategies but an under-emphasis on follow-through and implementation of those strategies.

Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan

I thank the witnesses for their interesting presentation. Deputy Catherine Murphy might have touched on the point I am about to make but it is worth repeating. A carbon tax is, as it were, a road that must be taken if we want to change people's habits, but the danger is that it will not be used for that purpose and will instead be used to increase the overall tax burden. It would be a shame if we took that route. Good ideas like local taxation have been destroyed forever because of how we have gone about them. If we want to bring people around to this way of thinking, it must be done right. We cannot rub people up the wrong way.

There is a certain belief to the effect that we are better than others at saving the planet. One area that is not discussed regularly is the diet we eat. I am a vegetarian and was a vegan for some time, although I found being so too difficult in this country. There are massive environmental benefits from it. I do not suggest that anyone become a vegetarian and it is, in fact, none of my business. One aspect of organisations that work with developing countries that baffles me is the tendency to send those countries animals to somehow help them. It might be a nice idea that everyone would be able to eat cheese and drink milk like us, and I like my cheese and milk, but there is a sense about it that those poor people in the Third World do not get to have cheese or milk. This is a misguided policy. As far as I know, producing 1g of animal protein takes ten times as much energy and water as producing 1g of vegetable protein. Can someone explain to me why groups, including Trócaire, according to its website, are sending goats to people who must then feed those animals with food they could eat themselves, all so that they can become richer than their neighbours and, in a sense, beggar their neighbours? That is, inevitably, what will happen. If one has a goat on the land eating the crops one could be eating oneself, it will mean less for one's neighbour. How does that all fit into this?

There seems to be a policy that one of the reasons we should do this is because we have no choice. That is a great way to turn people off something like this. It should be led on the basis that it is good for people, and it is a good thing, not on the basis of a threat that it had better be done or we will be beaten with a stick, so to speak. I am concerned that we are taking that route, that we have to do this. The reason we have to do it is because we need to survive on the planet, not because someone will fine us.

There are climate change sceptics. I am not one, but I am a sceptic of trying to save the planet simply by talking about global warming. A more logical way to go about it, and I do not think anyone could disagree with this route, is that we do not waste things. If one taught people not to waste energy or anything they use in everyday life, one would solve the problem. However, this whole thing seems to be being done on the basis that people had better do this or we will be hit with a stick. That is not the way to go about it. We need to bring people along.

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. Meehan could begin the responses.

Mr. Éamonn Meehan

Might I call on Mr. Crowley to start? I could then respond.

Chairman

I delegate in the committee all the time and there is no reason Mr. Meehan cannot do the same.

Mr. Tom Crowley

There were some good and pertinent questions. To clarify, Trócaire does not send animals and usually sources animals locally. As to vegetarian or other diets, we work to support people to have nutritious diets in the context of where they live. In some parts of the world, such as the arid and semi-arid parts of east Africa, much of the typical diet is based on animal protein. That is their culture and their nature for many centuries. In addition, certain areas are not appropriate for growing crops. In very arid areas one's diet is very dependent on animals. One of the things we are doing in that regard is supporting the change in animal stocking. We are supporting people to change from having cattle to having more resilient animals such as goats, which can forage in an arid area. However, it is very challenging. We are aware that there is an appropriate level of stocking. One must be very careful about the level of stocking and to ensure that the type of animals one promotes and supports people in stocking can be carried by the environment. That is one of the challenges we consider. That is the context and we support people in having a nutritious diet in that context.

The other issue in promoting sustainable approaches is that in developing countries many of the partners we work with are much further ahead of us in taking a sustainable approach. It is, perhaps, a shame and reflection on ourselves when one sees communities doing their utmost to harvest rain water and reduce their energy consumption through the use of fuel efficient stoves and solar energy lamps. Given the challenge of climate change, I am always struck personally when I return to Ireland by how little we do in view of the resources we have compared to what people with very limited resources are doing. In many developing countries people are very cognisant of the scarcity of resources and they look after resources very well. We have a great deal of learn from there in terms of housing and how we use energy.

Mr. Éamonn Meehan

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan talked about not wasting things and about animals, diet and carbon emissions. Everything we do must be seen within that context of overall sustainability. I refer to the point I made at the outset about the difference in emissions. An average person in Malawi, for example, is responsible for 0.7 tonnes per year, while in Ireland a person is responsible for over 17 tonnes per year. That is the scale of it and in that sense the problem is significant here. It is up to us.

To a considerable extent it is within our own capacity to bring about the type of change mentioned by Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan. There is a roadmap now and it would be regrettable if there was substantial or any slippage in terms of that roadmap, which was outlined at the beginning of this year. This committee has a key role in ensuring there is no such slippage and that we get a climate Bill. There is a further key role for the committee in working with, hopefully, an independent expert group to ensure it is monitored and that the type of sustainable development that is possible can be delivered.

Chairman

I will interject before the concluding comments. The climate change discussion often reminds me of St. Augustine of Hippo. It is a case of asking the Lord for climate change and proper behaviour, but not yet from oneself so one can continue to drive one's car or continue to harvest the fossil fuel one's grandfather and father harvested on the basis that this is what should be done. There is a massive challenge in the longer term. However, we must put things in context. From the European perspective, the biggest challenge facing Europe is that it has taken it 150 years through a process of industrialisation to arrive at a particular standard of living. Other parts of the world are going through this process in a fraction of that time. China is going through an industrial revolution over a period of 15 years. Ploughing fields behind oxen, which we were doing 150 years ago, is what people there were doing 15 years ago. There are a number of challenges in that regard. The European challenge is how to protect the standard of living that was secured over 150 years while at the same time protecting the environment and dealing with the consumption challenges. If we continue with our current approach to consumption, we will need another two planet Earths by 2050. We simply cannot meet that level of consumption. Everybody cannot drive a car; there is not that much steel on the planet.

The question for the committee is what policy will get us out of this difficulty. There was a very interesting presentation to the chairpersons of the EU environment committees in Copenhagen from Renault's top emissions engineer. One would expect this guy to be seeking to have the process slowed down and to oppose regulations, standards and so forth. It was the opposite. The guy was screaming for Europe to drive emissions down and to become the global standard bearer, and for pressure to be put on the auto industry with regard to engineering solutions for the long term. It was very refreshing. He said there is an opportunity for the European motor trade, if we are going to change to electric cars, to lead the charge and to examine that in diverse and innovative ways. He flagged another matter. We can set a target for reducing the level of emissions over a period of time, but he said the worrying issue is that in setting those targets governments set down policies but two years or four years down the line the rug can be pulled from under those policies. We saw that in this country. In 2008, tax reliefs were introduced for purchasers of bioethanol cars. One could buy bioethanol fuel in one's local garage and there was a big VAT rebate on that fuel. That tax relief was removed in 2009 or 2010, so if one had bought one of those cars one had a difficulty. However, companies such as Renault, Volvo, Saab and Ford had invested billions in designing those engines and suddenly all that research and development was gone out the window.

With regard to the witnesses' concluding comments, besides the emissions targets set down by Kyoto and the targets for 2020, 2050 and so forth, what type of policies are they considering for meeting at those targets? It is not simply a case of meeting the emissions targets. They can be met, but they can be met incorrectly as we witnessed with the bioethanol fuel. There was also a geopolitical impact from that, as we saw with Africa, because countries were replacing food crops with cash crops as a result.

Mr. Joseph Curtin

Gina Hanrahan and I are here to talk about the report. I am not avoiding the question - I will get to it - but the reason we have not discussed policies is that we are here to talk about the climate policy framework. That is one of the issues of the day. We believe it is important to get the framework right first before starting to talk about policies. I am working with the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, at present which has been asked to address the issue of what policies and measures must be implemented in the compliance period to 2020. That report has been submitted to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and it would be remiss of me to go into the details of what is in the report. However, it is a 300-page response to that very question. I believe it will be available in the next couple of months. It also relates to what Deputy Flanagan said.

What is emerging strongly internationally is that energy efficiency is the most important climate policy. Energy efficiency investments pay for themselves. It is cheaper to invest in energy efficiency than to buy energy over a ten year period. Without referring to any research undertaken in NESC, the international research suggests that there is huge potential in investing in buildings, and Irish buildings are an excellent example of this because they are very leaky and built to a very poor standard. In terms of compliance with the 2020 target, I believe this might be an area on which we could focus up to 2020. Cliona Sharkey might wish to add to that.

Ms Cliona Sharkey

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan referred to the issue of miscommunicating climate change. Not only do we need effective policies, we need a collective sense of endeavour and clear goals to inspire cross-societal support for what we are doing. One of the important aspects of a climate law is that it can help us to achieve this by giving people a clear sense of direction and the sense that we are all working together towards a common goal.

Ms Cliona Sharkey

I agree with the point about not seeing climate change in isolation but seeing it in the context of a broader ecological and social crisis and looking at production and consumption models. As Ms Hanrahan said, we would not focus on policy but the framework to ensure that policies can be developed and implemented. Mr. Meehan made the point that there is a need for the public interest and the interest of vulnerable people, domestically and globally, to be a key principle in guiding action. Not all responses to climate change are positive and the promotion of bio-fuels and the result of land grabbing and displacement overseas is a key example. The public interest and the interests of the domestic and global vulnerable should be a key principle in guiding action.

Chairman

I thank Ms Hanrahan, Mr. Curtin, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Crowley and Ms Sharkey. They touched upon the fact that the committee has worked out a roadmap in conjunction with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Department. The committee is conscious of the signposts on the roadmap and is anxious to ensure we meet the targets set. It is a more appropriate approach than setting an objective of introducing a green Bill. We could write that Bill this afternoon. In substantiating it, as Ms Sharkey and Ms Hanrahan said, it allows us to come up with a broader context in that framework. I thank the witnesses for the quality of their presentations to the committee and for the direct and informative way in which they responded to questions from committee members.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.55 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 July 2012.